Maurer v. Naill

5 Md. 324
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedDecember 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 5 Md. 324 (Maurer v. Naill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maurer v. Naill, 5 Md. 324 (Md. 1853).

Opinion

Tuck, J.,

delivered the opinion of this court.

This case must be disposed of upon the construction of the ante-nuptial agreement between the appellant and her husband. If she has relinquished her rights to his estate in virtue of the marriage, she has no claim to the administration of his estate, nor to object to the validity of the probate of his will. Something was said at the bar as to the inadequacy of the consideration of that agreement, reference being had to the extent and value of the husband’s property before the marriage. But with such questions we have nothing to do on the present record, so long as the agreement remains in existence.

We do not perceive how this case can be distinguished from Ward vs. Thompson, 6 G. & J., 349. The point there was as to the right of administration on the wife’s estate. Letters were claimed by the husband and by one of her children, and the Court of Appeals held, that the husband, by his marriage contract, had not only suspended his marital rights during coverture, but had relinquished them forever. In this case it appears that the parties mutually agreed, that at the death, or' before or after the death, of the other, his or her property should not be claimed in any way by the survivor. This was as entire an abandonment of all right of administration as was contained in the deed in Ward vs. Thompson. We have no doubt that the court would have also decided, if the question had been before them, that Thompson had no interest whatever in any part of the wife’s estate. That is certainly the effect of the agreement in this case; and having abandoned all claim to the property, the appellant can have no right to question the propriety of the probate of the will. We express no [327]*327opinion on the rights of this appellant merely as widow independently of the marriage agreement.

Order affirmed with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Senk v. Mork
129 A.2d 675 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1978)
Klock v. Klock
282 Ill. App. 245 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1935)
Friese's Estate
176 A. 225 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1934)
In re Berner's Estate
187 N.W. 377 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Egbert v. Egbert
217 S.W. 365 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
Union Railway Co. v. Hunton
114 Tenn. 609 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1905)
Murphy v. Fallon
77 N.W. 575 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)
In re Estate of Davis
39 P. 756 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Mayor of Baltimore v. Smith & Schwartz Brick Co.
31 A. 423 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1895)
Nusz v. Grove
27 Md. 391 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1867)
Edelen v. Edelen
6 Md. 288 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1854)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Md. 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurer-v-naill-md-1853.